RangerWickett
Legend
Also, he had a . . . I forget which set of Magic the Gathering, but he had a Magic Poster too, I think.
[OT] Spider-Man...who's interested? (possible spoilers)
- Thread starter Tom Cashel
- Start date
Breakstone
First Post
He also had the periodic table of elements poster. 
Abotu the game- Bruce Cambell voiced the tutorial for the video game. Quite a funny guy...
Abotu the game- Bruce Cambell voiced the tutorial for the video game. Quite a funny guy...
Henry
Autoexreginated
How can a movie that p***es you off make you enjoy it an hour later? I'm still trying to figure that one out.
The Peter/MJ funeral scene had me bummed for an hour after the end of the movie. Later, when I realized that was the way it had to end, for Peter anyway, the rest of the movie kicked in, and I found myself liking it immensely. My wife (a non-comic book fan) enjoyed it greatly, as well.
I liked all the movie's little touches, and all of the CGI was well-done in my opinion. For all the complaints about it not following real-world physics (such as in Roger Ebert's column), I have to say that it followed the comic-book physics, and that's all that mattered. If critics were worried about Spider-man swinging a little TOO fast and casual, they must have been absolutely livid when Mary Jane falls from Spider-man's reach and falls a good 50 feet before catching the side of the cable car, WITHOUT wrenching her arms out of their sockets.
About the goblin's mask: did everyone catch the reference to where Osborn got his idea for the mask from? I LOVED his mirror conversation. True wacked stuff.
I loved the usual cast of characters that usually show up in a "Raimi" production - it's one of those little "hallmarks" you find.
Now, if only waiting for the 10th and the 16th weren't such a pain! I WANT MY STAR WARS!
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and I lok forward to seeing a sequal. Hopefully, the cast, and director will remain the same, because they did a hands-down excellent job with this one.
The Peter/MJ funeral scene had me bummed for an hour after the end of the movie. Later, when I realized that was the way it had to end, for Peter anyway, the rest of the movie kicked in, and I found myself liking it immensely. My wife (a non-comic book fan) enjoyed it greatly, as well.
I liked all the movie's little touches, and all of the CGI was well-done in my opinion. For all the complaints about it not following real-world physics (such as in Roger Ebert's column), I have to say that it followed the comic-book physics, and that's all that mattered. If critics were worried about Spider-man swinging a little TOO fast and casual, they must have been absolutely livid when Mary Jane falls from Spider-man's reach and falls a good 50 feet before catching the side of the cable car, WITHOUT wrenching her arms out of their sockets.
About the goblin's mask: did everyone catch the reference to where Osborn got his idea for the mask from? I LOVED his mirror conversation. True wacked stuff.
I loved the usual cast of characters that usually show up in a "Raimi" production - it's one of those little "hallmarks" you find.
Now, if only waiting for the 10th and the 16th weren't such a pain! I WANT MY STAR WARS!
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and I lok forward to seeing a sequal. Hopefully, the cast, and director will remain the same, because they did a hands-down excellent job with this one.
Chun-tzu
First Post
About the Peter-MJ ending, I think there's another reason why it had to end that way (besides the fact that it's true to the character and the source material), and why I'm glad that it did. This movie was meant to be the first of a franchise (a trilogy at least). One of the things that I hate about the Batman movies, James Bond movies, Indiana Jones movies, and a zillion other franchises is that the romantic plots are a joke. Every movie is a different girl. What the **** is that? Am I supposed to care about this fourth girl now? Is she any more meaningful than the last 3?
The reason they do that, it seems, is the perception that there's nowhere to go after the hero gets the girl. If Peter and MJ were together at the end of this movie, where would the romantic tension be in the next one? Granted, they could screw it up by dragging out too long (they're still friends after 10 movies), but if it's timed well, then it makes for a much more genuine and meaningful romance element. While it would be interesting seeing Felicia Hardy or Gwen Stacy in the later movies, they should keep Mary Jane instead of just dumping her and moving on to a new girl.
The reason they do that, it seems, is the perception that there's nowhere to go after the hero gets the girl. If Peter and MJ were together at the end of this movie, where would the romantic tension be in the next one? Granted, they could screw it up by dragging out too long (they're still friends after 10 movies), but if it's timed well, then it makes for a much more genuine and meaningful romance element. While it would be interesting seeing Felicia Hardy or Gwen Stacy in the later movies, they should keep Mary Jane instead of just dumping her and moving on to a new girl.
Barendd Nobeard
Explorer
Henry said:
Yep. Even Lucy Lawless has a cameo (as a "Punk Girl") but I missed her. It's a credit that even the Internet Movie Database has missed.
MulhorandSage
First Post
My review
SPIDER-MAN (a review)
If superheroes are, as some cultural observers say “modern day gods” than Spider-Man has a lock on the trickster archetype. An acrobatic wise-cracker who hides a world of pain and guilt under his mask, Spider-Man was the gateway drug of choice of many baby-boomer geeks into the world of comic books, including myself (who remembers Amazing Spider-Man #180 as his late adolescent entry point into comics). While the basic nature of Batman and Superman may appeal to kids, Spider-Man is an archetype that an adolescent can sink his teeth into; the classic Lee/Ditko Spider-Man is a boy on the edge of manhood, grappling with issues of guilt and responsibility, whose personal problems were often far more formidable than any of the villains he fought. He was Everynerd, and when he donned his longjohns and started making outrageous quips at the villain while dancing In circles around them, well it was a catharsis for more than just the character.
How then to judge the movie adaptation of Spider-Man? Well, there’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that they nailed the character. Toby McGuire is wonderful as Peter Parker, the nebbish high school student turned photographer, and so’s pretty much the rest of the supporting cast, especially Kirsten Dunst, who’s done her screen career a world of good here. Willem DeFoe plays a more interesting take on the Green Goblin than anything the comics ever came up with, making him an almost sympathetic figure. Here Norman Osborn is a schizoid who was forced into sn act of self-mutilation by the worst instincts of a capitalist system whose pursuit of short-term profits eclipses the long term needs of their companies and destroys people’s lives. And J.K. Simmons, playing the most delicious role in the entire canon of superhero comics, nails it perfectly; as skinflint newspaper publisher J. Jonah Jameson, Simmons is the quintessential New Yorker, combining pomposity with natural accuity and the instincts of a street fighter. If he were Perry White’s evil twin, he’d have eaten him in the womb.
The CGI special effects are too obvious and artificial, but at the same time they succeed at doing the one thing they needed to do most; they get the swinging right. If the 1980 Superman’a motto was “you can believe a man can fly”, Spider-Man’s motto was “you can believe a superhero can swing”. And despite the CGI, the motion is believable enough that you can feel Parker’s exhilaration. His first extended prolonged swing serves the same jubilant purpose as Superman’s first flight – when a man first understands his potential, and the joy that’s derived from that understanding.
The bad news? Like a lot of genre films, this plot breaks down at the two-thirds mark, when the wonderful character-building stuff has to come to an end so they can resolve the plot. The nicely drawn parallels between Osborn and Parker go out the window, and only the subtext gives a real hint to the Goblin’s motives. The Gobln's schizophrenia, played up during scenes where Osborn learns he’s the Goblin by hearing the Goblin’s laughter in a mirror, and a scene where he’s being ordered around by his mask, are genuinely creepy moments that go a long way toward establishing the character. But it’s about two scenes too few. One can criticize the Batman series for overplaying the villains, but at least you get a sense of their motivation there; here, once Osborn’s finished with his revenge, you don’t get a sense of why he’s drawn to battling Spider-Man; yes, there’s an explanation for the attraction in the script, the lines are delivered well by DeFoe, but there’s “explanation” and there’s “suspension of disbelief”, and I didn’t feel Osborn’s motivation. If at the end, you’re wondering “why are these guys fighting” in an action movie, something’s wrong. Put simply, despite the fact they set up some nice personal connections between Parker and the Osborns, the climax doesn’t emphasize it enough. It lacks the emotional impact that it should have had.
Contributing a large part to undermining the Goblin’s character is the costuming. Lets be frank here, the Green Goblin costume is the dumbest costume in the entire history of big budget superhero movies. It's worse than Superman IV’s Nuclear Man, or even Joel Schumacher’s gay fetish take on the Bat-suit. The characters cast one of the most expressive faces in the entire movie industry to play the Goblin, and they cover it up with blandly molded fiberglass. What on earth were they thinking?
Another contributing factor to the disappointment is the mundanity of Spider-Man’s fight scenes. Comic book battles are as much ballet as brawl, and particularly with Spider-Man and the Goblin both being characters that thrive on motion, choreographing them as two guys in spandex standing tall and duking it out is an immensely disappointing failure of either imagination or budget; only at the end of the last fight, where Spidey pulls off a clever trick with webs and a brick wall, do we really get a taste of comic book inventiveness. Also missing is Spidey’s trademark combat banter, though here I suspect McGuire’s high pitched voice works against him – it’s not a vocal register well-suited to delivering taunts and bravado. Unfortunately, it contributes to a flatness to the combat scenes, and that’s where the film needed to soar.
Spider-Man is two-thirds of a great movie, just close enough to the level of a classic to be really frustrating. It had all the elements to equal the epic scope of Donner’s Superman, Green Goblin could have been a match for the twisted villainy of Nicholson’s Joker in Burton’s Batman, and McGuire is almost a match for the pathos of Jackman and Paquin in the underrated X-Man. Unfortunately, it falls short of all three films. Spider-Man is a great take on the character (enough that fans will love it and non-fans will find themselves rooting for this heroic Everynerd), but it’s not a particularly great movie, and it could have been both. A pity.
Scott Bennie
SPIDER-MAN (a review)
If superheroes are, as some cultural observers say “modern day gods” than Spider-Man has a lock on the trickster archetype. An acrobatic wise-cracker who hides a world of pain and guilt under his mask, Spider-Man was the gateway drug of choice of many baby-boomer geeks into the world of comic books, including myself (who remembers Amazing Spider-Man #180 as his late adolescent entry point into comics). While the basic nature of Batman and Superman may appeal to kids, Spider-Man is an archetype that an adolescent can sink his teeth into; the classic Lee/Ditko Spider-Man is a boy on the edge of manhood, grappling with issues of guilt and responsibility, whose personal problems were often far more formidable than any of the villains he fought. He was Everynerd, and when he donned his longjohns and started making outrageous quips at the villain while dancing In circles around them, well it was a catharsis for more than just the character.
How then to judge the movie adaptation of Spider-Man? Well, there’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that they nailed the character. Toby McGuire is wonderful as Peter Parker, the nebbish high school student turned photographer, and so’s pretty much the rest of the supporting cast, especially Kirsten Dunst, who’s done her screen career a world of good here. Willem DeFoe plays a more interesting take on the Green Goblin than anything the comics ever came up with, making him an almost sympathetic figure. Here Norman Osborn is a schizoid who was forced into sn act of self-mutilation by the worst instincts of a capitalist system whose pursuit of short-term profits eclipses the long term needs of their companies and destroys people’s lives. And J.K. Simmons, playing the most delicious role in the entire canon of superhero comics, nails it perfectly; as skinflint newspaper publisher J. Jonah Jameson, Simmons is the quintessential New Yorker, combining pomposity with natural accuity and the instincts of a street fighter. If he were Perry White’s evil twin, he’d have eaten him in the womb.
The CGI special effects are too obvious and artificial, but at the same time they succeed at doing the one thing they needed to do most; they get the swinging right. If the 1980 Superman’a motto was “you can believe a man can fly”, Spider-Man’s motto was “you can believe a superhero can swing”. And despite the CGI, the motion is believable enough that you can feel Parker’s exhilaration. His first extended prolonged swing serves the same jubilant purpose as Superman’s first flight – when a man first understands his potential, and the joy that’s derived from that understanding.
The bad news? Like a lot of genre films, this plot breaks down at the two-thirds mark, when the wonderful character-building stuff has to come to an end so they can resolve the plot. The nicely drawn parallels between Osborn and Parker go out the window, and only the subtext gives a real hint to the Goblin’s motives. The Gobln's schizophrenia, played up during scenes where Osborn learns he’s the Goblin by hearing the Goblin’s laughter in a mirror, and a scene where he’s being ordered around by his mask, are genuinely creepy moments that go a long way toward establishing the character. But it’s about two scenes too few. One can criticize the Batman series for overplaying the villains, but at least you get a sense of their motivation there; here, once Osborn’s finished with his revenge, you don’t get a sense of why he’s drawn to battling Spider-Man; yes, there’s an explanation for the attraction in the script, the lines are delivered well by DeFoe, but there’s “explanation” and there’s “suspension of disbelief”, and I didn’t feel Osborn’s motivation. If at the end, you’re wondering “why are these guys fighting” in an action movie, something’s wrong. Put simply, despite the fact they set up some nice personal connections between Parker and the Osborns, the climax doesn’t emphasize it enough. It lacks the emotional impact that it should have had.
Contributing a large part to undermining the Goblin’s character is the costuming. Lets be frank here, the Green Goblin costume is the dumbest costume in the entire history of big budget superhero movies. It's worse than Superman IV’s Nuclear Man, or even Joel Schumacher’s gay fetish take on the Bat-suit. The characters cast one of the most expressive faces in the entire movie industry to play the Goblin, and they cover it up with blandly molded fiberglass. What on earth were they thinking?
Another contributing factor to the disappointment is the mundanity of Spider-Man’s fight scenes. Comic book battles are as much ballet as brawl, and particularly with Spider-Man and the Goblin both being characters that thrive on motion, choreographing them as two guys in spandex standing tall and duking it out is an immensely disappointing failure of either imagination or budget; only at the end of the last fight, where Spidey pulls off a clever trick with webs and a brick wall, do we really get a taste of comic book inventiveness. Also missing is Spidey’s trademark combat banter, though here I suspect McGuire’s high pitched voice works against him – it’s not a vocal register well-suited to delivering taunts and bravado. Unfortunately, it contributes to a flatness to the combat scenes, and that’s where the film needed to soar.
Spider-Man is two-thirds of a great movie, just close enough to the level of a classic to be really frustrating. It had all the elements to equal the epic scope of Donner’s Superman, Green Goblin could have been a match for the twisted villainy of Nicholson’s Joker in Burton’s Batman, and McGuire is almost a match for the pathos of Jackman and Paquin in the underrated X-Man. Unfortunately, it falls short of all three films. Spider-Man is a great take on the character (enough that fans will love it and non-fans will find themselves rooting for this heroic Everynerd), but it’s not a particularly great movie, and it could have been both. A pity.
Scott Bennie
Last edited:
Zhure
First Post
mouseferatu said:
Same re: Morbius. He's supposed to be in Blade soon.
My bet is the new spidey suit makes an appearance in Movie 2, so venom shows up in Movie 3. That puts Doc Oc in #2 as the most probable candidate. Personally, I always liked the Scorpion. We'll have to wait and see.
Greg
Similar Threads
